men And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Busi ness set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put. GREAT NORTHERN AND CITY RAIL- 66 Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a second time time." consider the position of these men. He ¦ repeated that these were matters which deserved the consideration of the Admiralty. If they had a strong and powerfully built ship, it should contain a peaceful and happy crew, especially when they remembered that the were deprived of the comforts of home. If they were allowed to place their case before the Admiralty he was certain that there would be an attempt to redress their grievances. Another class of men were carpenters' crews. It would be said that was the class to which he belonged, but he was only going to speak of them from the naval point of view, because the men were helpless *MR. MORTON (Sutherland) moved themselves. If they were engaged by that the Bill be read a second time that private firms, they would be able to put day six months. He opposed it on behalf their case before their employers. The of the Corporation of the City of London. carpenter's crew consisted of the black- He said the Bill was promoted by the smith, the cooper, the joiner, and the ship- Great Northern and City Railway Comwright. It would surprise the Committee pany for the purpose of obtaining a to hear that the cooper, the joiner, and the revival of powers for the purchase of blacksmith each received 2s. 4d. a day, land and for extending the time for the and they graduated until they had passed completion of the works of the intended the various stages and could take warrant extension of the company's line authorised rink, at 5s. 6d. a day. What he asked by their Act of 1902, from the present was that the case of these men, with the terminus at Finsbury Pavement along whole of the other classes-he referred to and under Moorgate Street to the corner the lower deck men-should be considered of Lothbury. The time for the purchase by the Admiralty Board, and he appealed of lands under the Act expired on the to the right hon. Gentleman to use his 8th of August 1905. It was proposed to best influence in their behalf. He knew revive those powers for a period of two the Secretary to the Admiralty's sym- years from the passing of the Bill. The pathy lay somewhat in that direction. He time for the completion of the railway and wished further to refer to the fact that works expired on the 8th of August next, martial law in the British Navy did not and it was proposed to extend that apply to men of the lower deck. He had time for three years. The City received from the Secretary to the Corporation opposed the granting of the Admiralty some assurance that this original powers mainly on two grounds; matter would obtain favourable con- first, that the extension in question was ideration. But up to the present unnecessary and that the slight conthe same condition of things prevailed. venience of conveyance for a distance A man who was charged with having been of 420 yards further did not justify the asleep at any rate that was the story-heavy expense involved; and secondly, without having the power to appeal to a court martial, was suddenly disrated and put on the rating of a seaman. Surely in this country, where we had Courts of justice, and where even the criminal could make his appeal, men in the service of their country, with a long record of excellent conduct, ought to have an opportunity of appealing to a court martial, and to have their case thoroughly sifted. Mr. Jenkins. because the short piece of line proposed would occupy the way beneath part of an important north and south route and seriously interfere with more useful and comprehensive schemes of locomotion. The Corporation were of that opinion still, and therefore opposed any revival or extension of the powers. The company's present terminus was in direct and convenient communication by a short subway beneath Finsbury Pavement with the City and South London a waste of money, and he thought the proposed station at Lothbury would interfere with the street traffic, and as every Member of the House knew, that was a matter of the first importance in the City of London. Bearing in mind that over 1,250,000 people came into and had to be got out from the City every week-day, the Corporation had been driven to the conclusion (and this agreed with the advice of the police) that the passengers must not be brought to, or dumped down at or near one central spot, but that the stations must be distributed over the City area. He had been told that the company wanted more lift accommodation at their present terminus. That they must otherwise provide for and he would not oppose it. He proposed to ask the House to read the Bill a second time on that day six months, because he wanted to save the ratepayers the expense of opposing it in Committee. He appealed to the House to assist them in the proper regulation of the traffic to and from the City, and he made the same appeal to the Board of Trade; although he was afraid that that Board was generally more inclined to help the companies than the local authorities. He begged to move. Electric Railway, which ran to the Bank the Bill in 1902, because they thought along the same route as the proposed the extension unnecessary, and therefore, extension, with through fares. The company's existing line was not financially successful, and the fact that the company had failed to take any steps to use the powers granted them five years ago, which they now sought to revive and extend, was proof that the construction of the extension by them was a financial impossibility. The sole object of the Bill was to enable the company to continue to hold statutory powers over the route in question so as to exclude other schemes, and he submitted that Parliament should not assist the company in such a course. If in the future the company found themselves able profitably to undertake the projected extension and the route was still unoccupied, they could then apply to Parliament again for the necessary powers, but until there was reasonable probability of the company's exercising any powers they sought he submitted that no fresh ones should be conferred upon them. He contended that the company had not followed the usual course in applying for a revival of powers, which was to apply in the session immediately following the expiration. The company, however, had allowed eigh een months to elapse before even making up their minds to ask for the revival of the powers which expired in August 1905, and the present application was merely to avoid the inquiry and examination which would ensue upon a fresh application. The landowners and others concerned (including the Corporation) naturally regarded the scheme as dead, and if it was to be sanctioned again it should be after complete inquiry and reconsideration of the whole scheme, and no by way of a mere revival of powers as proposed by the Bill. He opposed the Second Reading .on the part of the City Corporation. He had nothing to say against the railway as it now existed. It ran from the northern end of Moorgate Street to Holloway and Finsbury Park, and he regretted that it was not a paying line. Five years back the company got their Act to extend the railway, but from that time till now they had done nothing whatever to carry out the proposed extension. In addition he might inform the House that the Corporation opposed The company were now seeking renewed 6 MR. SMEATON (Stirlingshire) formally seconded the Motion. Amendment proposed "To leave out the word now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words upon this day six months.'"-(Mr. Morton.) Question proposed, "That the word now,' stand part of the Question." THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport) said his hon. friend the Member for Sutherland had stated very clearly and accurately that this Bill sought for a renewal of the powers granted to the Great Northern and City Railway in 1902. Their compulsory powers for the acquisition of land had actually expired, whereas the powers to construct the extension of the line did not expire until August next. powers for the construction of a short line-if he might call it so-although piece of railway and revived powers for it had had powers for ten years. From the compulsory acquisition and purchase what the hon. Member said it might of land. With regard to the acquisition be supposed that the railway company of land he was informed by the railway was making some most exceptional company that they only proposed to use request in asking for a renewal of powers; the compulsory powers for the acquisi- but the fact was that, with one exception tion of land at Lothbury, where the no one single "Tube" railway had exigencies of a station might require more carried out the powers conferred by space. His hon. friend was an old Parliament without coming back for a opponent of the scheme, having given renewal of those powers. The Central evidence against it on behalf of the Cor- London Railway, the position of which was poration before the Committee in 1902. In above question, which paid a dividend, that year the hon. Member put his and which was of the greatest public case before the Committee, and so far utility, was authorised in 1891, and came as he had been able to follow his grounds back in 1894, and again in 1899 for an of objection on the present occasion they extension of time. The Baker Street and were practically the same. The hon. Waterloo Railway was authorised in 1893, Member said he spoke for the City and came back to the House in 1896, Corporation in regard to the Bill, but he in 1899, and in 1902. The Charing Cross was rather afraid that he had not the and Euston Railway was authorised in full hearted backing of the City Corpora- 1893, and came back to the House in tion. 1898 and 1902. The only exception was the Waterloo and City Railway, which was constructed with London and South-Western money. He thought there was even some special justification for a railway at this moment asking for a renewal of powers, for, as everyone knew, the financial condition of affairs was exceptional. Money was dear and did not flow freely into undertakings of this kind. The amount of railway construction going on, even on the rich lines, was the smallest since 1894, and as to light railways, he was told that of the lines authorised from 1897 onwards less than 10 per cent were under construction. The hon. Member had suggested that the railway was not in a flourishing condition; but it was early days to judge whether the railway was successful or not. Even if the venture was not successful he did not think they had anything to complain of if people liked to embark money in a tube railway in the very heart of London. He did not agree, however, that the venture was hopeless. The railway brought into the city last year 14,000,000 of people, an increase of 1,000,000 over the previous year. MR. MORTON said the Parliamentary Secretary was wrongly advised, because the City Corporation had requested him to take the question up, and they were absolutely unanimous in regard to it. MR. KEARLEY said that he would, of course, accept the hon. Member's statement. First of all, the hon. Member said this extension was not needed, and that it would be very little use if the House granted it. He had stated that in the judgment of the Corporation the railway terminus would be very much better where it was, because if the extension were allowed it would result in the traffic's being brought into the centre of the City,, and the discharging of passengers from the various exits would add to the congestion in that particular neighbourhood. He had prophesied that the railway company would not be able to surmount the difficulty in regard to the necessary ways and means. But the hon. Member failed to convince the Committee of that. The Committee heard him fairly, and his case was supported by witnesses and counsel. The hon. Member had brought forward nothing new on the present occasion to justify the rejection of the Bill. Indeed his case was much stronger in 1902 than now, MR. KEARLEY said his hon. friend because he was able to argue that the was aware that there were many good railway had not constructed its main undertakings which were not paying Mr. Kearley. MR. MORTON: Has it paid any dividend? a dividend at present. That was no commodation was free. He found, howreason why the railway should not ever, that when he had been thirty days extend its line. He thought he had said in hospital a portion of his wages was enough to justify him in asking the deducted. That was wrong in principle. House to give the Bill a Second Reading, Either hospital accommodation should and enable it to go to a Committee. If be really free, or the seaman should be any argument were necessary he would told it was only free for thirty days. He refer to the Royal Commission on London drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention Traffic, which had all the Tube Bills to this griveance last year, but it was still before it, and which stated that when all unremedied. He hoped the right hon. the railways already authorised had Gentleman would consider the suggestion been completed the most practicable that hospital accommodation should be part of the railway communication free. He wished also to point out that the within the central area would be fully pro- hospital accommodation was not provided vided for. The Commission thus raised in the right place. The sick boy was at no objection to this railway, but recom- present on the main deck right forward mended that it, with others, should be where the ship was not protected, whereas carried forward to completion. It was it ought to be, as in the American Navy, the function of the Parliamentary Secre- below the protected deck. He thanked tary of the Board of Trade to get these the Admiralty for having greatly inBills a Second Reading. There were creased the wages of the dockyard men, occasions when if he dived into the but the men were very anxious to receive clauses of the Bill he might find objec- a pertinent reply to a pertinent question, tions; but it was for him to get the Bill namely, whether the Admiralty were before the Committee where details were prepared to say that trade union rate of considered and counsel could be heard, wages should prevail in the dockyards. and of all the cases he had had to deal They simply wanted an answer, Yes or with, this was one in which rejection on No. The representatives of Labour in the Second Reading was least deserved. the House would not be satisfied until the Government were prepared to pay their employees the recognised standard rates of wages which they compelled employers of labour outside who did Government work to pay. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to give a satisfactory assurance in reference to the improvement of the conditions of British seamen, and in regard to the payment of fair wages; otherwise, however much he would dislike it, he would be compelled to vote against the Government. MR. MORTON asked leave to withdraw the Amendment as he had the Board of Trade against him. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. SUPPLY (NAVY ESTIMATES). [Mr. CALDWELL in the Chair.] Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That 120,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the said service,' (Mr. Murray Macdonald)-resumed. Question again proposed. MR. MURRAY MACDONALD asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty if he would engage that the programme of new construction would not be proceeded with until the House. had had an opportunity of discussing it before the meeting of The Hague Conference. MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON said that of course the Government could not MR. JENKINS said there was a accept his hon. friend's Motion, which grievance among seamen in connection was to discharge 8,000 officers and men with hospital accommodation on board from the Navy. The real intention of ship. Every seaman on his note of the hon. Gentleman in moving the enlistment was told that hospital ac- Amendment was to ask for a promise that no progress would be made with the Nore squadron was kept in harbour shipbuilding programme until the House instead of being a sea-going squadron, had had an opportunity of discussing merely to save the coal bill? Were on Vote 8. A small unarmoured cruiser thirteen battleships to be laid up with was to be laid down at Pembroke, only small nucleus crews, and was it not but that was sanctioned last year by the case that if a battleship was laid up Parliament. He could promise that the for ten or twelve months her machinery shipbuilding programme in its essence would not work, and that it would take a would not be proceeded with until Vote good deal of time and expenditure of 8 was taken; but he could not give the money before the ship could be got ready assurance which his hon. friend had asked for war? Was it the case that at the for that Vote 8 should be taken before The present time six ships of the "Royal Hague Conference, as, of course, the Sovereign" class were so laid up, and arrangement of the business of the were therefore at the present time beHouse lay with the Prime Minister. coming useless for anything like an The question of the hon. Member for immediate war? Were these battleships Chatham, that trade union conditions supposed to be in commission merely beand wages should be recognised in the cause their flags were flying from their dockyards, could not be decided by the mast-heads? Supposing the flags were Admiralty alone. It must be considered not flying from the mast-heads would it by the Admiralty in consultation with be said that they were in commission? the Treasury, as it affected other Govern- Was it not the fact that most of the ment Departments as well as the dock- dockyards were at the present time yards, and perhaps the best course for the short-handed, and that the carpenters and hon. Member to take was to address a joiners in the Royal Navy were not so Question to the representative of the well paid as men doing the same kind of Treasury. He hoped his hon. friend work on land? It was alleged that they the Member for Falkirk Burghs would were only paid a little more than half withdraw his Amendment, and be satis- the wages paid on land, and he thought it fied with the explanation he had given. was very hard that the men should go through a course of sea training, with all its hardships, and be paid much less than their more fortunate brethren on land. Was it not the fact that only 10d. was allowed per day per man for the messing of seamen and stokers and mechanics, MR. MURRAY MACDONALD said he would like the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the Prime Minister to have Vote 8 discussed before The Hague Conference. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Original Question again proposed. and for that reason the men were obliged to spend a considerable amount of their wages in buying extra provisions? Was it the fact that the contractors on board His Majesty's warships had a monopoly and charged the men extravagant prices for what they were obliged to buy? *MR. HUNT said he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the boys trained in the Nore Squadron were supernumeraries or part of the full MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON asked complement of the squadron, and also if the hon. Member meant the canteens? whether he considered the Fleet at the Nore was as ready to meet a sudden attack as if it were a sea-going squadron; and if it was not, was it not true that in about six months time we should have only fourteen battleships really ready instantly prepared to oppose sixteen or eighteen battleships which number would be kept ready for war at any moment by a powerful neighbouring country. He asked whether the Mr. Edmund Robertson. *MR. HUNT said he did, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not think that that was very wrong, and should be stopped? Did the right hon. Gentleman think that, with the reduced number of battleships and the great shortage in cruisers, the Government would be able to prevent the people from being starved into submission in the event of war with one or more Naval |